Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

Just a few months ago we heard how Labor was dragging its feet on delivering on some fundamental election commitments when it came to the charities and not-for-profit sector. It was dragging its feet on the Productivity Commission inquiry that was aimed at doubling giving by 2030. It was dragging its feet on its Building Capacity, Building Community policy. I'm pleased to say, under a bit of pressure from this chamber, we've now seen both the announcement of the Productivity Commission inquiry and some further detail in regard to the Building Capacity, Building Community initiatives. Why is it that, having dragged its feet on providing some certainty about what the future for the charities and not-for-profit sector might look like under this governments, it is now seeking to pull the rug from underneath those charities that earn an income through franked dividends? It's a very, very important question. It's not a suggestion, it's not a guess on my part or the coalition senators' part on what's happening here. Labor is either consciously trying to rip money from the charities sector through its franking credits plan or it's designed a policy which will inadvertently hurt charities and rip not just $1 billion but possibly $2 billion worth of franking credit revenue from charities in Australia. Is it a conscious decision or is it the consequence of poor policy design?

Senator Polley, I can see you here, looking enthusiastic at my contribution. I only have to direct you to page 52 of the Tax Expenditures and Insights Statement document. It says, at page 52:

In 2019-20, around $67 billion of franking credits were distributed by Australian companies.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, on a point of order?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that the senator be required to withdraw his assertions that I was enthusiastic about his contribution, knowing the history of his government.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure that he needs to withdraw that. But I would ask that you direct your comments to the house through me.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley may not have been enthusiastic, but she was paying attention, and I thank her very much for that.

I was referring to paragraph 3 at page 52; you might like to grab it on your iPhone, Senator Polley, before you make a contribution this afternoon. It says:

In 2019-20, around $67 billion of franking credits were distributed by Australian companies. Around $17.2 billion of these were claimed by 3.1 million residents on their individual tax returns that year, with the remainder flowing to other local entities including other companies, superannuation funds and charities …

Think about the remainder, which is $50 billion. That was in the government's own document, released as part of the budget honesty process. Why is it then that this government feels that it needs to pick on charities? They were slow to deliver their election commitments, slow to deliver the Productivity Commission inquiry into doubling giving by 2030, and now, hidden at page 52 of the tax expenditure statement, we have Labor's plan to make it harder again for charities.

But just think about this for a moment: a little while ago they announced a Productivity Commission inquiry to double giving by 2030. Here, at page 52, is a plan that will make it harder for charities to earn income—Peter robbing to pay Paul. This is crazy and it is inconsistent at a time—and this is the most serious point—when Australian charities and the not-for-profit sector need to be supported in our community more than at any other time in recent history.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That includes take note. We have a hard marker with a motion previously moved in the Senate. I will put the question. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Dean Smith, to take note of answers, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.